[Redfern]

As some of you reponded to my previous post about 3 weeks ago, I thought I should let you all know the outcome.
The good news: I wasn't fired, and was sentenced to 2 weeks w/o pay (suspension).
The bad news: I was found to have "willfully violated a State employment policy" and was found guilty of "Neglect of Duty, by failing to provide a safe work environment for myself and my co-workers".

Sounds a little ironic, since the .22 never left the holster. :scrutiny:

However, since my personal safety is of less concern than their liability, I guess I coudn't expect anything else.

I am suprised that my supervisor's supervisor is an NRA member and he strongly dis-agreed with my actions.

My Attorney said to accept the punishment, and only call him if I was fired.

And Life goes on.........

[P95Carry]

I guess it coulda been a lot better.... but a fair bit worse also!!I am suprised that my supervisor's supervisor is an NRA member and he strongly dis-agreed with my actions. That is sad ... tho I daresay he is being very PC and wearing his ''job hat'' ... I would hope that underneath he sees things different .. tho again, thinkin on that - if he had the strength of his convictions he shoulda backed you up a bit.

As you say .. life goes on .......

[Mike Irwin]

Can you enter a written comment for the record? Might not be a bad idea.

[George Hill]

Take your licks... take it on the chin and move on.

I'd look for another job myself.

[Pendragon]

Be glad you have a job.

Lots of people do not these days.

[westex]

Remember there are a lot of duck hunting "they aren't bothering me" members in the NRA. Sadly.:mad:

[telewinz]

Glad you are still employed but if it ever happens again............:uhoh:

[Frohickey]

Use those 2 weeks of unpaid vacation to start looking for another job...

[gunsmith]

thanks for keeping us in the loop.
now get a north american mini .22,they will never see it!

[Double Naught Spy]

Talk about getting lucky! Good for you!

This all sounds appropriate...
"willfully violated a State employment policy" and was found guilty of "Neglect of Duty, by failing to provide a safe work environment for myself and my co-workers".

While you felt it was ironic that this was description given the .22 never left the holster, what you may have failed to understand that whether or not a work environment is considered safe is not dependent on whether or not something went wrong. You feel everything was safe because the gun was in the holster (and I do too), but the gun is considered a dangerous item (and rightfully so) that is not part of your job.

You know what a lot of people fail to realize about cops is that every call they go on is a gun call. If not already present, they introduce firearms into every situation they work and in a frightening amount of cases, if there is gunfire, it comes from the officer's gun and not necessarily with the officer pulling the trigger. The officers add a certain level of additional danger by bringing guns along to where guns might not be already present. You did as well, only the circumstances were quite different. You don't fight crime and the cops are supposed to have guns as part of their jobs.

In reading a description of a well loved bootlegger caught running moonshine, he was sentenced to the pen but the judge gave him quite a bit of time to get his affairs in order. The night before going to the pen, his buddies through him a party. They got drunk on 'shine and had a real trial of his peers. They too found him guilty...of being dumb enough to get caught, and sentenced him to a beating. Everyone fought and several went to the hospital in what was reported to be one of the best parties in those parts in a long time.

I really liked the idea of trial by actual peers (other moonshiners) and the verdict of "being dumb enough to get caught." Concealed means concealed.

[Andrew Rothman]

I'm sorry you have to go through this. Still, you knew the work rules, broke them anyway, and got caught. What sort of leniency did you expect from the uberboss, NRA or no?

[hso]

You still don't get it do you? The employement rules say no guns. If you get caught breaking such a rule it's a willfull violation. You take your lumps from your employer and don't expect to be cut any slack. The fact that your managment has someone that is in the NRA couldn't make any difference in whether you were punished (and shouldn't since he shouldn't be subborning work rules for a fellow club memeber), but may have made all the difference in whether you got to keep your job.

On the other hand, if there is a real threat to your safety in your work your employer is OBLIGATED to mitigate that hazard. If they're suspending you for 2 weeks w/o pay then they need to provide the appropriate hazard controls for the workplace if they don't approve of your attempts to do so. If you think that violence is a possible issue then they need to work up controls to prevent your exposure. That may mean police escort in some places at some times. It may mean not entering some areas at some times of night. It may mean team response only for those places/times.

[Willard]

Glad you are still employed. But look around, there are plenty of folks on these boards who would have turned you in for it or found you guilty at trial. NRA membership doesn't mean the same thing to all people.

[Peetmoss]

But look around, there are plenty of folks on these boards who would have turned you in for it or found you guilty at trial.

I think you might be wrong there Willard. IMNSHO most of the people here would have probably pulled him aside and informed him of his failure of concealment, and probably given him tips to do better next time.

[Kenneth Lew]

I would have to agree with hso.

1. It has already been determined that a written policy on firearms possession has been introduced to you.
2. You must have acknowledged it in writing that you fully understand the rules of the company.
3. You violated the rules and regulations by carrying a firearm w/o consent of your employer.
4. If the employer does not punish you for such a violation, it shows signs of weakness to other employees that they may be able to get away with anything else.

[Standing Wolf]

I'm glad you weren't fired. I hope you'll find a job where your civil rights are respected.

[Redfern]

Perceived threat is a very subjective assesment. With all the random violence that occurs today, the business end of even a .22 can suddenly make attackers very polite. Would this escalate a situation? Hard to say. But it might convince a knife-weilding one to find easier prey.

This has been going on about once a week around, but I hear that's a drop in the buket compared to Los Angeles:


Bank robber gets away

Man points gun at teller; two detained in case of mistaken identity

Olympia police detain a woman after a witness told police of seeing a bank robbery suspect get into a car Tuesday outside Venture Bank on Olympia's west side. Police released her and her father, who was inside the vehicle, after they determined the two weren't connected to the crime.

Ron Soliman/The Olympian


SCOTT GUTIERREZ THE OLYMPIAN On the Web

Olympia Police Department: http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/Police/



OLYMPIA -- A man in a ski mask robbed a west-side bank Tuesday, holding tellers at gunpoint until they handed him cash, police said.
The 4:20 p.m. robbery began when he stormed into Venture Bank, at the corner of Cooper Point Road and Harrison Avenue in the Capital Village shopping center. He ordered tellers to stuff money into a plastic bag, which he later dropped behind the nearby Goodwill store with what police think was most of the cash inside, Olympia police Detective Russ Gies said.

The robber first pointed the weapon at the teller handing him the money. When another teller motioned to hit a silent alarm, the robber pointed the gun at her head and told everyone to put their hands up, Gies said.

Takeover robbery

It was the first takeover robbery Olympia police have investigated in a few years. Most recent bank robberies have involved suspects who write notes implying they have a weapon, or display guns in their waistbands without brandishing them, Gies said.

"Most of our bank robberies are note robberies," Gies said. "Frankly, we're concerned. This was much more violent than we've seen in the past."

Police thought they had nabbed the suspect when they stopped a car that a witness reported having seen pick up the robber. Officers pulled over the car and ordered the driver out at gunpoint on the opposite end of the shopping center.

But the witness's description turned out to be incorrect. Officers mistakenly detained a customer who had just left the bank and was going to pick up a pizza when she was stopped.

With rain pouring down, Cindy Iribhogbe, 34, was ordered out of her car and told to lie on the wet pavement. Officers cautiously handcuffed her and also detained her 66-year-old father, Ramon Estrada, who was walking back to the car from a store where he had been dropped off.

'I'm in awe right now'

"You know, the back of a police car is not comfortable at all," Iribhogbe said, the front of her clothes still drenched. "I'm in awe right now. But it's going to hit me later."

She said she was pretty shaken. Officers searched her and her white Ford Escort wagon and figured out she and her father weren't the crooks. She said the officers apologized for the mistake.

Police later learned the witness had confused Iribhogbe's father for the robber and saw him getting into the car, Sgt. Keith Thuline said.

Nonetheless, any time officers think a suspect has a gun, officers make a "felony stop," where they stay behind cover and draw the suspect out of the car at gunpoint, Thuline said.

"They were actually very cooperative and understanding about it," Thuline said.

The bank robber was described as a white male, thin, about 6 feet 3 inches tall, and wearing a black ski mask with a single slit for his eyes. He also wore a brown, hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans.

The FBI and a Lacey police detective joined Tuesday's investigation. Lacey detectives are examining whether the robber could be linked to a robbery at a Washington Mutual bank last week. Gies said Tuesday's robbery has not been linked to any other robberies.


http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031119/southsound/152940.shtml

[JohnBT]

I have 29 years with a relatively small state agency and thought I'd toss in my two cents worth.

Management doesn"t always strictly adhere to the letter of the personel regs - some weeks it seems like they seldom do. It depends on who is involved in the decision making and how, or if, they like you. Like anywhere else, it depends on the local manager, regional boss, etc.

Once the paperwork is initiated the process usually takes on a life of its own (fueled by "yes men" I-love-a-meeting bureaucrats) unless someone with enough pull loses the file on you. I can see one NRA member stepping in to save the day, but I doubt that one person will make a difference most of the time.

Decisions are typically not made by one person once the first phone call is placed to a superior or a form is officially filed. Think committees and work groups composed of various players in the chain of command. (It helps to have the DIRT on everybody else, too. Leverage can save the day.)

WHAT REALLY GRIPES ME is that I can't legally carry, even with my permit, in our rented office building but any client or visitor can - openly or concealed.

John

[Jammer Six]

I would have to agree with hso.

As would I.

I'm one of the ones who would have turned you in.

One of the basic premises (and the one your boss was wise enough to subscribe to) of the demands for our rights is that we're not the bad guys. We are Citizens, and we meet all the responsibilities of that position honorably.

We follow the rules. We have legitimate carry permits, and we carry legally and correctly.

No one is impressed when you follow the rules that are easy to follow. The only thing that counts is following the rules that are difficult to follow.

If you break the rules, if you shirk your responsibilities as a citizen, if you think you're above the rules or laws, or if you forfeit the moral high ground, you're just another bad guy with a gun in my book.

You become an argument against gun rights, you become fodder for the antis, and you become another reason to limit all of our rights.

Do it right or pay the consequences.

Anyone who claims that it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six isn't familiar with life in a super-max. There is legitimate carry, and there is rationalization.

I would have fired you.

[DakotaSig]

Redfern: Did the requirement for an medical evaluation get set aside?

[Double Naught Spy]

Redfern, your justfication that a .22 might change the circumstances is correct and yet it is some of the worst reasoning to offer in regard to what you called random violence (which usually is anything but random). Your choice of a .22 is an extremely poor defensive choice. Between that and the inability to conceal something as small as a .22, I think you have some real serious issues you should be reconsidering. Picking one of the worst defensive calibers, one of the smallest, and still not concealing is troubling.

As for being bothered your clients can enter the building armed but you can't, maybe you should be a client and not an employee? As part of your employment, and as you know from this case and before, you agree to abide by certain rules and regulations, provide work under given parameters, and the company fulfills their obligations to you in the way of compensation. If you are chapped about not being able to carry, be chapped at yourself. You were the one who agreed to such crappy conditions or failed to move on when such crappy conditions were implemented. Sure, I know the story. Jobs are tough to find. Don't want to move to get a new job. Don't want a cut in pay to get a new job. Don't want to commute further for a new job. Yaddy Yaddy Yaddy. If you feel that you need to carry a gun and your employer does not allow it, then don't you think maybe your values are misplaced by trying to stay with the employer? By not changing jobs, for whatever your reasoning, you are saying that the convenience of staying and being unarmed is worth the risk to your life...or being armed is worth getting fired over and losing benefits that you might need for you and your famiily. This is in contrast to a little inconvenience and working someplace that allows you to carry where you feel safe.

While you may not like the rules, the decision is, was, and will be yours to make regarding whether you stay or not. You lost 2 weeks pay? That would be 10% of your earnings for the year. Ouch. You have now lost the trust of your employer as you have proven to not be willing to abide by the rules. I would not count on a promotion anytime soon. Was it really worth it?

[45crittergitter]

How about a followup letter from your attorney to your agency stating for the official record that since they actively prohibit you from protecting youself, they are assuming the responsibility for doing so, and you look forward to meeting the new armed bodyguards they will be providing....

[Andrew Rothman]

You lost 2 weeks pay? That would be 10% of your earnings for the year. Ouch.

3.8%

Mat(h geek)t

[clubsoda22]

My college doesn't allow students with CWP's to carry on campus....BWAHAHAHAHA. That will stop when campus safety starts doing their job. 5 armed muggings since september, pitiful.

[HankB]

. . . a well loved bootlegger caught running moonshine . . . his buddies through him a party. They got drunk on 'shine and had a real trial of his peers. They too found him guilty...of being dumb enough to get caught, and sentenced him to a beating. There's a lesson in this tale . . . concealed means CONCEALED.

[Andrew Rothman]

I disagree strongly with Jammer Six. Obeying all the rules doesn't make you a good guy: it makes you an automaton.

Rules describe general cases. This may be the most convenient way for us to regulate a society crammed with millions of people, but it is not the best.

Rules have exceptions. Sometimes these are codified; often they are not.

Say that right turns on red, for example, are illegal. It's good to obey the law, right? It's definitely safer, isn't it?

But what if your wife is in labor? What if there is a fire truck behind you? Do you stubbornly obey the law, or let common sense and intelligence determine that there are exceptions?

It's illegal to go through a red light. But what if it's four in the morning on an absolutely deserted road? Why wait? The rule is there for safety. If the safety concern is moot, shouldn't the law be as well?

Each of us is a free person, whether we choose to be or not. We have the blessing of free will, which includes the ability to obey or disobey any rule.

What we have to do is weigh the possible consequences of obeying or disobeying, and make a decision. That decision MUST include a realization that, if caught, we must face the consequences of our actions.

Redfern made a conscious decision to disobey a work rule. He knew the rule, tried for an official waiver, was denied, and decided to break the rule anyway.

Was he justified? Was his risk actually great enough? Not my call. Only he can decide whether the risk was worthwhile to him.

What he failed to do is take full responsibility for his actions. He didn't, by most people's accounts, bring enough gun. He didn't try hard enough to keep from getting caught. And he lied to his supervisors when caught, then changed his story. And then, frankly, he whined a little bit about how unfair it all was.

Would I have turned him in? No way. Assuming that I didn't think he was a psycho (I think he isn't... :)), I would have dragged him kicking and screaming into the cult of the SmartCarry (http://www.smartcarry.com), and tried to talk him into a better gun.

----

Now that this incident has passed, some final advice for Redfern:

* You have anxiety mental health issues. I'm not judging or disparaging you, but were they related to these errors in judgement?

* Given these issues, are you confident in your ability to make good snap decisions on the use of lethal force? In other words, if you take a good hard look at yourself, are you fit to carry?

* You can pretty much assume that the trust is gone at your current job. Thank your higher-power-of-choice that it's hard to get fired from a state job, and use the time to look for a job that may be a better fit for your needs, including especially the need to feel safe, either by carrying or by not being in remote areas that feel dangerous to you.

Yes, I know that it's hard to find a new job. It's not impossible. Even if you need to go get some more education, it's still a reachable goal. It just might take a few months, or even a year or two. In the end, you may be happier.

* Think about what went wrong this time, and how you will change your behavior to prevent things from going wrong next time.


Best of luck.

Matt

[pytron]

Alright, let's cut Redfern some slack. He screwed up, got caught, and paid the price. He was polite enough to let us know what happened and has been quiet while we beat him about the head and eyes for some unfortunate choices.

My 2 cents on the issue (worth what you paid for it):

IMO .22 caliber is almost worthless as a defensive piece. Carry something bigger.
IMO a Jennings is worthless as a defensive piece. Get something reliable.
Get a better concealment method. Obviously whatever you were using wasn't concealed enough. I assume you aren't going to be carrying at work anymore, but if you were, look for deep concealment methods - SmartCarry, belly band, Kramer Confidant shirt holster, pocket holster. Something that is under your shirt or pants and doesn't rely on a cover garment.
Just because there are rules doesn't mean they should always be followed. For instance, if I'm on my bicycle waiting at a red light for 7 minutes and it never registers that I'm there, I'm going to run the light, even if it's illegal to do so. To apply that to self-defense: If it were against the law to have loaded guns in your home if you had kids, would you keep them unloaded? I think intelligent law breaking, while risking some of your health and well-being, can also save it.
Changing jobs because the employer does not allow firearms is a good idea but not always practical. You have to accept the risks of violating the rules as well as the risks for following the rules. As said before, no job is worth dying for.
Lying about something at your job is about the worst thing you can do. It ruins whatever trust your employer had. Don't ask how I know this.


Thank you Redfern for sharing your mistakes so that everyone may learn from them.

-Pytron

[Jammer Six]

I disagree strongly with Jammer Six.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. :D

Yes, we disagree.

Obeying all the rules doesn't make you a good guy: it makes you an automaton.
Rules describe general cases. This may be the most convenient way for us to regulate a society crammed with millions of people, but it is not the best.

That's one way of looking at it. It doesn't give credit where credit is due, however.

What this mode of thinking leaves out is that my decision to obey all rules, is a choice.

Now, if I'm not free to make that choice, use that choice as a standard to measure the actions of others, and as a compass to determine my course of action, (even if that course of action affects others) then you logic falls apart.

If you truly believe that we are free to follow our concience, and make our own choices on a case by case basis, why do you disagree that I am free to follow my concience, even when (perhaps particularly when) my concience dictates that my course of action will be the opposite of what you choose?

The decison to pull a trigger is binary. You do or you don't. The decision to carry is binary. You do or you don't.

You must decide, therefore, between all the way on or all the way off, everytime you decide to carry, draw, or fire.

There is no in between, there is no halfway. Is you is or is you ain't. You can be a little bit Republican, with a dash of Libertarian, but you can't be a little bit shot.

My point is this: there must be a line. You must decide where your line is, and that ability to choose is exactly what you are promoting, a choice. A separate choice, every time.

You can base your choice on anything you want, including the law, rules, the Koran, the Bible, what you hear in an AA meeting, church, the bar, this group, or at the range, but even if you ignore the option, you will make a series of choices when it comes to weapons.

You will draw your line, you will make your choice.

The results of my choices are legal acts, where the results of your choices may not be.

The results of my choices will conform to any set of rules I allow myself to be placed in, including schools, federal buildings, stores, and other public places. I know whether or not my weapon is allowed under their rules before I go, and I either don't go or I comply with the rules governing the place under discussion. That, also is a choice that will result in compliance with the rules, where your choice may or may not.

In my view, when the rules say that we are all to be unarmed, when someone is armed, that person is wrong, out of the gate.

If you disagree with the rules, the laws or the way things are, my belief is that you work to change them. I make no claim that that is easy, or that any of the things I'm promoting are easy.

In fact, I claim that the very fact that these views result in difficult choices adds value to those choices. The easy way is for the Crips, the Bloods, and the rest of outlaws.

It is not for me. That also is a choice.

No one is above the law. No one deserves to choose which rules to obey and which rules may be broken.

It is the height of arrogance to conclude that you may judge what is best, and to place yourself above us, and the rules we follow.

I pity anyone who is that arrogant, simply because they will live with fears that I do not.

Those who believe that it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six aren't familiar with life in a super-max facility, and if you break carry laws, that hell is a thing you must fear, because it is one possible result of your choice.

I obey laws. I obey rules.

When I disagree with laws or rules, (which is getting less and less frequently as I get older, incidentally) I work to change them.

There are no laws in this country that are bad enough to warrant picking up arms, and overthrowing the government.

I also work to see that those who cross my path who are in violation of the rules and laws of the place we are in pay the consequences for those choices.

To date, that has included one wife beater, one car jacker and about a dozen drunk drivers.

I choose my friends based on their choices, and whether their choices coincide with mine. That includes honesty, how they conduct business, and their choices regarding rules and laws. To date, no member of the Hell's Angels has made the cut.

Those are my choices, and I am proud of them.

Have a good day. :cool:

[pytron]

<start thread hijack>

The results of my choices will conform to any set of rules I allow myself to be placed in, including schools, federal buildings, stores, and other public places. I know whether or not my weapon is allowed under their rules before I go, and I either don't go or I comply with the rules governing the place under discussion. That, also is a choice that will result in compliance with the rules, where your choice may or may not.
I understand and admire you commitment to the rule of law.

The problem is with unjust laws or rules. Changing the system from within is not always possible. The civil rights movement is a good example where unjust laws were overturned because of rule-breaking actions. You may have no problem conforming to the firearm laws of Washington State. But what if concealed carry were outlawed and carjackings/muggings were occuring every day in your area? Would you still follow the rules? What if firearms were prohibited in the USA completely? At some point there comes a time to break the rules. That point is different for everyone out there.

Yes, there are risks for breaking the rules. Ask the 80-year old man who defended himself in New York and is now facing charges. Would he rather have followed the rules and risked his life?

My point is, there are instances where laws should be broken TODAY, in the USA, right now. There are unjust laws that are threatening the lives and livelihood of thousands of people every day. Should we conform to the law and risk our lives, or do we break the law and risk our lives? Each person decides, just as you have decided.
</end thread hijack>

[Redfern]

I heard some comments about the "underpowered .22". First off, the Jennings is reliable, and it is kept in Condition 3. Second, I would never introduce a .22 into any real fight, just the one's involving a knife. I consider it a complement to my folder. Like I said, even with a .22, criminals can become polite, especially if it isn't a "committed " attack. And lastly, those .22 Stingers sure make a lot of noise.:D

[Redfern]

Now here is an Oxymoron: In a previous post I mentioned that a co-worker(with whom I do not associate with) was involved in this:

12. Two months ago, a different Lead employee, 32 years old,was busted for 131 plants in his garage. While he was arrested at the office, the cops found a loaded .357 revovler in his car, (parked in the State parking lot). P.S. No connection to me, just part of the timeline.


Now this guy may get work-release for a year as part of his sentencing. So that sets up this scenario:

Because he didn't commit a "Crime of Moral Turpitude" or " Felony of a heinious nature" there would be no suspension from employment service.

Does that seem fair compared to my rights?

The Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Section 24: "No man shall be denied the right to bear arms........

RCW 9.41.70: "A Sheriif or Law enforment agency "Shall Issue" a CPL to citizens who pass the background check."

[Jammer Six]

Changing the system from within is not always possible.

We disagree. It may not always be easy, it may not even be doable in our lifetimes, but I believe it is always possible.

The civil rights movement is a good example where unjust laws were overturned because of rule-breaking actions.

We disagree again. The unjust laws were overturned, in my opinion, simply because they were unjust. The mechanism that triggered it was the civil rights movement, but no one knows what would have happened had Martin Luther King been a lawyer instead of a preacher.

Could he have been elected to the senate, and changed the system from within? Could Kennedy have bridged the gap between black and white, had he not been shot?

We'll never know. That path wasn't the one we took.

Claiming that the path we took was the only possible path is a claim that I won't believe.

Yes, there are unjust laws. And disobeying them just isn't the only method we have at our disposal for changing them. It may be the simplest answer, at least on the personal level, but it certainly isn't the only solution.

Ask Governor Davis where the real power in this country lies.

Yes, I am committed to the rule of law, and I thank you for your compliment.

One of the main reasons I am committed to it is simply the difference it creates between myself and those who aren't. That difference is very important to me, and I am usually surprised when I discover that something so basic isn't important to others.

I may loose. I may be cut down, unarmed, by a guy with an illegal weapon in a place where nobody is supposed to have a weapon.

I can live (or die) with that.

[BluesBear]

Does that seem fair compared to my rights?
Depends upon which Right youare referring to.

Don't forget that Washington is NOT a Right To Work state.

If you have a valid CPL I am sure that had the police been aware of your weapon that you would have probably gotten off with a "little chat" about the defination of concealed. But it was niot the police who saw you with it it was a co-worker. And it was your employeer who handled it.

As for you co-worker example, from what you relayed to us, it seems that it was the Police that were investigating him and not your employer.

There is a large difference to having a weapon in your automobile and having a weapon on your person.

I was working in a rather large and well established pawn shop in my former state. The owner was anti gun even though we pawned, bough and sold quite a few. Hell we sold a LOT. We were downtown about 10 blocks from a LARGE housing project.
(Do I need to explain a large section of our clientel?)

After working there for over a year and a half while carrying a 3" S&W M29 in a pancake holster, my boss finally realized I was carring. He learned this fact during a conversation between several employees one day. There had never been anything said either way about carrying. He had never asked and I had never told.

He said that he didn't want me carrying while i was working. It was OK for me to bring it in and put in one of my drawers behind the counter but not to wear it. Reluctently I did that, for about 3 days. Then I went back to carrying.

About a month later a long time friend who is a JCP officer was in and we were chatting and he mentioned to my boss that he bet he felt safer having me there. My boss told him that he didn't allow his employees to carry. Well one thing led to another and my boss realized that I was still carrying.

I was told that either I stopped carrying or I could find another job.
I looked at my friend and just smiled. I handed the boss my timecard, waited while he wrote my final paycheck and walked out. I have never been back in that store (I had been a customer there for about 15 years before I worked there) and I have never whined about my rights.

[MicroBalrog]

if you think you're above the rules or laws, or if you forfeit the moral high ground, you're just another bad guy with a gun in my book.

Just like the guy who got 922(0) kicked out? He disobeyed a law, too.

Just like Haney? Just like Silveira?

[Harold Mayo]

"Neglect of Duty, by failing to provide a safe work environment for myself and my co-workers".


Huh. I wonder what their response would be if you came back to work after your suspension and your workplace was assaulted by someone who gave you a perfect opportunity to stop him if you had been carrying right before he killed several of your co-workers?

On another note, though...

I am shocked and repulsed by the attitude taken by Jammer Six. No one is above the law? Everyone should follow the rules? Working within the system is fine but there comes a time when it becomes necessary to work outside of it. When do you decide when laws ARE bad enough to take up arms?

I find it likely that if Jammer Six were alive during the Revolutionary War, he would have been an English loyalist turning in the "rebels" because he believed that they should be working to try and convince King George to "give" them rights that they already possessed as human beings.

People need to think outside the box a little more. Just because something is lawful does not make it morally right. The attitude that every law is moral infuriates me...especially when the lawmakers themselves disregard the laws that don't suit them.

[Al Norris]

I concur Harold.

Should we all just follow the law, because it is, we would all be loyal subjects of the Crown.

The rule of law is good, only as long as such laws are just. It's a decision we all have to make.

[pax]

"When I have your wounded."
-Major Charles L. Kelly, callsign
"Dustoff", refusing an order to leave
a hot L.Z., July 1, 1964, moments
before being killed by a single shot.

Jammer Six,

Major Kelly refused a lawful order. He deserved what he got.

pax

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

[Jammer Six]

Actually, it wasn't lawful.

It was issued by the commander on the ground, who didn't have any authority over Major Kelly.

It was phrased as an order, but it wasn't lawful.

Your point is taken, though. There are times to break laws and disobey orders.

Those times will occur in combat.

I disagree that that circumstance (combat) exists anywhere in the U.S. today.

It was never my intention to suggest that there are no circumstances under which laws must be broken- my point is that none of those circumstances exist today, in the United States. We have, as citizens, more freedom than ever before, more individual power through our legal resources than anyone in history, and I don't believe it is necessary to break either laws or rules to obtain that which is rightfully ours. In fact, I would say that if you have to break a rule or a law to get it, that should be your first clue that you're not morally entitled to it.

If that changes, I'll be happy to lead the first wave. Be warned, though. By the time I'm ready to lead that charge, we're not going to screw around with demonstrations, signs or candlelight vigils.

Someone will have to buy my ammo, though...

[pax]

Jammer Six,

Glad you got my point. Now the next step.

Your point is taken, though. There are times to break laws and disobey orders.

Those times will occur in combat.
"In combat" meaning there are human lives at stake, yes?

pax

[Jammer Six]

"In combat" meaning there are human lives at stake, yes?


No.

Under that definition, every time a fireman entered a burning building, that building would become a free fire zone.

Excuse the pun, please.

I'm not talking about when Medic One answers a call for a heart attack, or an automobile acciddent with multiple victims.

I'm talking about armed combat between opposing armies.

Before you drag out the Bloods and the Crips, one or more of the armies I'm talking about must represent a recognized government.

I agree that the definitions for "war", "combat" and "battle" all fail to meet the standard for the word I want, and I confess that I don't know a word that meets the definition I want to use.

If anyone knows of such a word, I'll be happy to use it where I've used the word combat.

[Jammer Six]

Now that I think about it, I would also agree that almost by definition, the only way to start a war would be to break one or more laws, and, therefore, I would ammend my position to "obey the rules and laws, or start a war. There are no other moral choices."

[pax]

Hmmm. So if a human life is at stake, but some law or regulation forbids your stepping in to do anything about it, it would be immoral to disobey the law in order to save a human life because it isn't a war?

You sure you don't want to rethink that a little bit?

pax

You are remembered for the rules you break. -- Gen. Douglas MacArthur

[Jammer Six]

Hmmm. So if a human life is at stake, but some law or regulation forbids your stepping in to do anything about it, it would be immoral to disobey the law in order to save a human life because it isn't a war?


Yes.

My suspicion that while such an act may break a law, such an act would still be legal. I might need to re-word my position to "...remain legal..." instead of "obey the law..."

There is, however, a greater offence that your example ignores.

Both your question and my answer ignores the greater issue of allowing that law to stand unchallenged. The basis of my claim is that that law can be changed without breaking other laws.

I also suspect that if we get down to specifics, and I ask you to produce an example that actually happened that illustrates your hypothetical situation, we will also find a moral reason why that law or regulation existed- which puts you on the ground, under fire, attempting to decide which moral imperative is more important, and which you should break.

I invite a cite of such an incident, I would be very interested in a specific case, and how my theory holds up.

I would also be interested in what was done after the incident to change the law.

You sure you don't want to rethink that a little bit?


On the contrary. I am willing to rethink all my positions constantly.

In fact, my wife frequently assists my efforts to do exactly that.

[pax]

I also suspect that if we get down to specifics, and I ask you to produce an example that actually happened that illustrates your hypothetical situation, we will also find a moral reason why that law or regulation existed- which puts you on the ground, under fire, attempting to decide which moral imperative is more important, and which you should break.

I invite a cite of such an incident, I would be very interested in a specific case, and how my theory holds up.
Susannah Hupp obeyed the law that didn't allow her to carry a concealed weapon into a restaurant (Luby's Cafeteria) in Texas.

As a direct result of her civil obedience, she got to watch her parents gunned down in front of her while she was helplessly cowering under a table.

***

Another possible scenario. Remember Columbine? Let's pretend that you, as an armed citizen, were present at the school picking up your children on that terrible day. You had heard the screams and had seen from the street as those two slimebuckets ran through the school killing people, had seen that the police weren't yet on the scene and that children were being slain in front of you: would you be morally justified to carry your gun onto school property? (Never mind tactical considerations -- I'm asking if such an action would be moral.)

Why or why not?

pax

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

[Jammer Six]

Susannah Hupp obeyed the law that didn't allow her to carry a concealed weapon into a restaurant (Luby's Cafeteria) in Texas.

As a direct result of her civil obedience, she got to watch her parents gunned down in front of her while she was helplessly cowering under a table.


My objection here is that there is no evidence that Ms. Hupp's lack of a weapon led directly to her parent's death. It was not a direct result of her civil obedience.

It was gunmen that killed her parents, not the lack of a weapon.

It is completely possible that nothing she could have done, with or without a weapon, would have prevented the murders.

To take your position to an extreme, why didn't every other person there prevent the murders? Why isn't every other person there who didn't have a weapon morally responsible for the the deaths?

Was Ms. Hupp responsible, legally or morally for her parents?

Why aren't you raising the issue of the weapons her parents could have been carrying?

Why aren't all the police, who were surely armed that day, responsible?

Answer: because the murders were the direct results of the actions of gunmen, not of the inaction (or inability to act) of innocents.

The murders were not the result of Ms. Hupp's lack of a weapon, they were, irrefutably, the direct result of the illegal acts of the gunmen.

When you say that Ms. Hupp might have been able to stop one or both of the murders, you must include the word "might".

There is no such requirement when you make the statement that her parents were killed by illegal gunfire.

The danger, in my opinion, of your line of logic is that it attempts to extend a duty to act to those who shouldn't bear such a responsibility.

Ms. Hupp is not to blame. She bears no responsibility. He parents bear no responsibility. The waitress and other patrons bear no responsibility.

The gunmen bear the responsibililty. All of it.

They bear the responsibility not to murder anyone, and no one bears the responsibility of stopping them.

To say that Ms. Hupp could have stopped the murders implies that she had a responsibility not only to have a gun, but to use it, and that I cannot agree with.

That all said, my heart goes out to her, and I wish she, and every other person in the cafeteria that day had been able to open fire and shred the murderers, before the murders took place. Legally.

Another possible scenario. Remember Columbine? Let's pretend that you, as an armed citizen, were present at the school picking up your children on that terrible day. You had heard the screams and had seen from the street as those two slimebuckets ran through the school killing people, had seen that the police weren't yet on the scene and that children were being slain in front of you: would you be morally justified to carry your gun onto school property? (Never mind tactical considerations -- I'm asking if such an action would be moral.)

Why or why not?

Yes, it would have been moral.

Not only would you be justified morally, but here in Washington, it would have been legal under your scenario, assuming that those you identified and shot were the killers. (Identification shouldn't have been too hard, they were the ones with the guns...)

You can carry here, in areas for dropping off and picking up at a school, assuming a valid CPL, etc., etc.

You're right not to include tactical considerations, because that doesn't help your case. Tactical considerations, even in the Columbine example, are and will remain a major stumbling block for the advocacy of breaking the rule of law. The tactical considerations are probably one of the strongest reasons to leave the shooting of bad guys to the guys with the helicopters, radios, and badges.

[pax]

Not only would you be justified morally, but here in Washington, it would have been legal under your scenario, assuming that those you identified and shot were the killers. (Identification shouldn't have been too hard, they were the ones with the guns...)

You can carry here, in areas for dropping off and picking up at a school, assuming a valid CPL, etc., etc.
But you cannot legally carry that gun inside the school. Case law is that picking up or dropping off a student applies only while you yourself are within your automobile. If you need to get out of your automobile and enter the school building, the law requires that you lock your gun in the car.

And the law certainly doesn't allow you to carry your gun into a school building for the express purpose of shooting! Which is what we're talking about. If you carried your gun into a Columbine-type event in order to save lives, you'd be breaking the law.

In any case, you have just conceded that it would be moral to break a law if a human life is at stake. And that it is moral to do so (in contradiction of your earlier post) even if you don't plan on declaring war against the government or any such thing.

And that's all I was after.

pax

When law and morality contradict one another, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect for the law. -- Frederic Bastiat

edited for abominable grammar.

[pax]

My objection here is that there is no evidence that Ms. Hupp's lack of a weapon led directly to her parent's death. It was not a direct result of her civil obedience.
Let me repeat myself. I said, "As a direct result of her civil obedience, she got to watch her parents gunned down in front of her while she was helplessly cowering under a table."

The direct result of her civil obedience was her helplessness while her parents died in front of her -- not their deaths, but her powerlessness to prevent their deaths.

Perhaps if she, and they, and every other person in the room had broken the unjust and immoral law which made her helpless, all of them would be alive today. Perhaps not.

My point is that it would not have been immoral for one or all of them to (try to) save human lives, even if in order to do so they'd had to break a law. Human beings were not made to serve the law, after all, but the law was made to serve human beings.
The danger, in my opinion, of your line of logic is that it attempts to extend a duty to act to those who shouldn't bear such a responsibility.
Nope, I neither said that nor implied it.

To say that it is not immoral to act is not to say that it is immoral not to act. My sole point was that it is not immoral to break laws in the defense of human life.

pax

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. -- Thomas Jefferson

[Jammer Six]

In any case, you have just conceded that it would be moral to break a law if a human life is at stake. And that it is moral to do so (in contradiction of your earlier post) even if you don't plan on declaring war against the government or any such thing.

And that's all I was after.


No such concession.

Your original post, which is what I was answering, said "onto school property"- which is legal here, while you're picking a child up or dropping them off.

If your original post had said "into the school", that would have changed my answer.

I would say that if you had engaged one of the shooters at Columbine, Washington (our hypothetical engagement) from your car, you would have done exactly that- you would have engaged someone on school property, while obeying the law. Morally and legally clean, in my opinion.

I would say that it would be clearly illegal to then leave your car, and enter the school, and I would definitely say that it would be immoral- for the simple reason that you would make the job of responding officers harder, and you could easily cost more lives than you would save, by drawing the fire (or just the attention, for that matter) of those officers who have things to do that are WAY more important than dealing with you.

Not to mention the obvious, that given a room full of bodies and an adult holding a weapon, the conclusion would be "obvious", and if you saw a shooter take a shot outside the school, (which is what justified your shot) you took your shot, and that shooter is now down, you have something of a higher moral priority to do than to enter the school looking for bad guys that you don't know are there.

My opinion is unchanged- shooting bad guys is first a job for LEO's, and it only falls to us in the worst of circumstances, and the moral grounds for such a shot usually line up with the legal grounds.

I hate to split hairs when we're doing such a good job of debating intent, but the difference between "on school property" and "inside a school" does make a difference in my answer.

Let me repeat myself. I said, "As a direct result of her civil obedience, she got to watch her parents gunned down in front of her while she was helplessly cowering under a table."

The direct result of her civil obedience was her helplessness while her parents died in front of her -- not their deaths, but her powerlessness to prevent their deaths.


Then we disagree.

Her powerlessnes was not a function of being unarmed.

If that were so, she (and everyone else there) would have been powerless all morning.

She wasn't powerless until the gunmen opened fire, and excalated the incident to a fatal level- if they had remained at the verbal level, she could have defended her parents as long as she could think of things to say.

She wasn't powerless as long as the engagement was less than lethal. It was only once that threshold was crossed that she was at a disadvantage, and that threshold was crossed by the gunmen, no one else.

To reitierate my position, the death of her parents (and her being forced to watch it) was the result of the gunmen opening fire, and nothing else.

To say that "if she had been armed..." is to make the same claim the antis make: that guns, by themselves, are somehow responsible for events.

[Jammer Six]

To say that it is not immoral to act is not to say that it is immoral not to act.


Point conceded.

My sole point was that it is not immoral to break laws in the defense of human life.

I don't know about that.

Let me go stir the fire and think that over.

Perhaps more Nog of Egg will help.

[BluesBear]

While you are stirring Egg Nog into the fire, ponder this;


Pax said,
The direct result of her civil obedience was her helplessness while her parents died in front of her -- not their deaths, but her powerlessness to prevent their deaths.

Pax didn't say she had been powerless before this. Even though technically she was powerless to protect anyone's life against armed attackers.
When the attackers escalatated the attack she was, indeed, powerless to stop it.


Just as a woman walking down the street isn't powerless. But if she is attacked by a much larger and much more powerfull rapist, (unless she is sufficiently armed) she is powerless to prevent it.

[Jammer Six]

OK, I'm ready.

I have my answer.

Pax, you've changed my position.

The moral imperative is to obey the law up until the first law is broken.

I believe, after thinking it over, that that position is different from my original position, and I think it's the basis of the idea that using force to repel force is legal- killing someone is certainly illegal, and immoral, unless that person is threatening you.

The threat is the first crime, and the point at which killing becomes both legal and moral.

That said, there are limits. If you receive fire from some unidentified source in a crowd, are you within acceptable moral or legal boundaries to open fire, and kill the entire crowd?

Of course not. Not outside of combat. Even after crime has happened, even after you are morally and legally clear to return fire, there are limits, both legal and moral. While my crowd scenario may be an extreme, I use it to illustrate a point- danger to human life does not, by itself, remove either legal or moral retraints. Neither does incoming fire.

Nor can anything.

There will always be limits, and they will be imposed, in our society, in a quiet, reserved courtroom, where every Monday morning quarterback has had plenty of time to prepare, and every hair has offered itself up for splitting.

Going back to Ms. Hupp, I don't think anything has changed. She had a moral obligation to obey the law, and she still would have been unarmed when the attack started.

As a side note, why was it illegal for her to carry into a cafeteria?

[Al Norris]

Pax wrote:
Another possible scenario. Remember Columbine? Let's pretend that you, as an armed citizen, were present at the school picking up your children on that terrible day. You had heard the screams and had seen from the street as those two slimebuckets ran through the school killing people, had seen that the police weren't yet on the scene and that children were being slain in front of you: would you be morally justified to carry your gun onto school property?

Jammer Six wrote:
I would say that it would be clearly illegal to then leave your car, and enter the school, and I would definitely say that it would be immoral- for the simple reason that you would make the job of responding officers harder, and you could easily cost more lives than you would save, by drawing the fire (or just the attention, for that matter) of those officers who have things to do that are WAY more important than dealing with you.
So then, having seen children being shot, having seen the perps do the shooting, and having the means to stop the slaughter, your moral imperitive is to do nothing but observe?

One of the moral imperitives for carry, concealed or open, is for defense of self. This is right and proper. But there are other imperitives at work. Defense of family and defense of community are certainly valid moral imperitives.

I would ask, at what point does such an imperitive become a duty?

[Kharn]

Jammer Six wrote:
I would say that it would be clearly illegal to then leave your car, and enter the school
I remember a quote, I honestly forget who said it, that went "The law is not always right, and what is right is not always the law."

Kharn

[pax]

The moral imperative is to obey the law up until the first law is broken.
:) Progress.

Okay, now ponder this: Everything the Nazis did in Germany was legal.

pax

[Jammer Six]

Okay, now ponder this: Everything the Nazis did in Germany was legal.


Godwin's Law, not to mention that I covered it.

Obey the law or start a war were the two moral choices I've been advocating.

[Jammer Six]

So then, having seen children being shot, having seen the perps do the shooting, and having the means to stop the slaughter, your moral imperitive is to do nothing but observe?


That isn't even close to what I said.

[WvaBill]

One of the moral imperitives for carry, concealed or open, is for defense of self. This is right and proper. But there are other imperitives at work. Defense of family and defense of community are certainly valid moral imperitives.

In WV, defense of "State" is one of the justifications in application for CHL.

Given the lack of evidence that lawful CCW increases violence and that mass shoootings will occur in "gun free" zones, any place which bans CCW should be mandated to provide protection. Magnetometers at least. That won't occur due to economic considerations...that does't mean it is not right.

[Al Norris]

That isn't even close to what I said.

Since I quoted not only Pax's scenario, but your response to her, what is the other alternative? You stated that it would be immoral to enter the school to attempt to save the children (don't you love that phrase?). So if you are not observing, you are what? Fleeing the scene? Was there something else to interpret in what you said?

[Erik]

"The moral imperative is to obey the law up until the first law is broken."

Generally true, and recognized as such in the letter and spirit of the law in most places.

It hinges on the assumption that the violations of law enacted by the good guy occur subsequent to the initiation of violence by the bad guy.

Example: Dad drops kids off at school, gun legally on hip. Dad learns there is a mass shooting occuring at that moment inside the school. Dad, aware that he is not permitted to proceed armed inside, chooses to enter anyway, as the alternative is repugnant. Dad is morally in the right, as his unpalatable choice of lesser evil is clear to the average citizen. Will dad likely be detained, perhaps even arrested? Will it be argued a dozen diffent ways bythe pundits? Absolutely. He is in the right none the less. Society celebrates him. (Usual check your applicable laws statement applies.)

Change above to reflect illegal carry and dad is prosecuted for a misdemeanor at best. Gauranteed. Morally, he is far fro the high ground. Still a hero? Yes. A criminal one, though.

Our carrier falls into neither category, though, in that he opted for the low road and was caught sans heroic act. Glad he has his job. Learn lessons. Move on, figuratively and literally.